Tim Copeland and June Johnson Idaho Department of Fish & Game Idaho Natural Production Monitoring & Evaluation Project 1991-073-00.
Post on 27-Mar-2015
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Tim Copeland and June Johnson
Idaho Department of Fish & Game
Idaho Natural Production Idaho Natural Production Monitoring & Evaluation ProjectMonitoring & Evaluation Project
1991-073-001991-073-00
• Project history
• Recent results
• Future directions
Today’s Agenda
The 1980’s
• Idaho Habitat Evaluation for Offsite Mitigation Record (1983-007-00)
• Focus on Idaho’s wild/natural spring/summer Chinook (Steelhead, too!)
• General monitoring– Parr & redd counts, relate to habitat
• Intensive monitoring– Survival & production at 2 sites
General Parr Monitoring
Chinook Adult Escapement
The 1990’s
• Salmon declines & ESA listing
• General monitoring continued
• Mitigation & habitat monitoring?
• Intensive studies changed to ESU
• Focus on downstream passage
• Project data proved very important
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Brood Year
Red
ds
Co
un
ted
(X
1000
)Wild
Natural/Hatchery-influenced
Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys
Index Area Counts
Spawner to
Parr
y = 0.0018x - 2.1579
R2 = 0.5444
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Wild Spring/Summer Chinook LGR Escapement
Par
r D
ensi
ty (n
o./1
00m
2 )
y = 0.0002x + 1.5573
R2 = 0.6326
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Wild A-Run or B-Run LGR Escapement
Yea
rlin
g A
-Run
or
B-R
un
Den
sity
(no.
/100
m2)
(Hall-Griswold & Petrosky 2002)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Parr Density Year (year i)
ln(D
en
sit
y i+t/D
en
sit
y i)
WSC t=4.5
NSC t=4.5
W/N t=4.5
Replacement
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Parr Density Year (year i)
ln(D
en
sit
yi+
t/De
ns
ity
i)WA t=5.5NA t=5.5WB t=5.5NB t=5.5All t=5.5Replacement
Spawner to
Spawner
(Hall-Griswold & Petrosky 2002)
Chinook
Steelhead
Chinook Recruit/Spawner Analysis
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
59 64 69 74 79 84 89
Brood Year
Su
rviv
al I
nd
ex
Snake River
LowerColumbia
Schaller et al. 1999
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997
Brood year
Sm
olt
-to
-ad
ult
su
rviv
al (
SA
R)
0
50
100
150
200
Sm
olt
s/sp
awn
er
(Petrosky et al. 2001)
Chinook Life Cycle Survival
Project Benefits
• Excellent trend data set
• Lots of mileage and publications
• Project reports highly cited in regional forums (e.g. PATH & CRI)
• Also some site-specific survival & productivity estimates
Wild Snake River Chinook & Steelhead
• Monitor population status & trends
• Measure freshwater production
• Effects of habitat projects
• Estimate stage-specific survival
2001-2003 Objectives
Production & Survival
• Natural chinook smolts/female for basin– Lower Granite Dam data
• Age structure of chinook adult returns to basin– Length frequency analysis at Lower Granite
Dam
• Natural smolt-adult return rate for basin– Lower Granite Dam data– PTAGIS data
Chinook Freshwater Production Stock-Recruit Analysis
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
0
2,0
00
4,0
00
6,0
00
8,0
00
10
,00
0
12
,00
0
14
,00
0
Estimated Female Escapement
Es
tim
ate
d S
mo
lts
at
LG
R
19941999
1996
1998
1991
1995
19971993
2000
1992
1990
Smolt Forecast
y = -0.0001x + 5.8736R2 = 0.5133
3
4
5
6
7
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Female Escapement
(Ln
) S
mo
lts
pe
r F
em
ale
93
98
92
97
91
90
94
95
96
99
How well did the model perform?
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
0
10,0
00
20,0
00
30,0
00
40,0
00
50,0
00
60,0
00
Estimated Female Escapement
Est
imat
ed S
mo
lts
at L
GR
Predicted
Observed
After 2003 smolt migration
Steelhead PIT Tagging
Steelhead Tagging ResultsMigratory
YearNumber Tagged
Smolts Detected
1999 7195 1200
2000 6525 1330
2001 7430 1708
2002 5395 830
2003 7040 987
Average 6717 1211
Basinwide Steelhead Trends
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Migratory Year
SA
R
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
De
tec
ted
3 Ocean SAR
2 Ocean SAR
1 Ocean SAR
# Smolts Detected
Specific Migration Timing
03/23
/02
04/06
/02
04/20
/02
05/04
/02
05/18
/02
06/01
/02
06/15
/02
Brushy Fork Creek
Chamberlain Creek
North Fork MooseCreek
Whitebird Creek/SlateCreek
Co
llec
tio
n S
ite
Detection Date
10% 50% 90%
Percent ofTotal Detections
Chinook Fin ray aging & SARs
• Discrepancy between PIT tag returns and scales
• Length at Age x LGR Length Frequency = Length at Age for entire Snake River ESU
• Assign returns back to correct brood year
Collection Sites
Fin Rays >97% Accuracy
2003 Carcass Length at Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fork Length (cm)
Pe
rce
nt
Fre
qu
en
cy 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
Ages
2003 Proportion of Carcass Length at Age
Ocean Age
FL (cm) 1 2 3 4
<50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50-54 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
55-59 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
60-64 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
65-69 0.14 0.86 0.00 0.00
70-74 0.00 0.91 0.09 0.00
75-79 0.00 0.90 0.10 0.00
80-84 0.00 0.81 0.19 0.00
85-89 0.00 0.24 0.76 0.00
90-94 0.00 0.07 0.92 0.01
95-99 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.04
100-104 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.02
>104 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
Video at LGR Counting Window
2003 LGR Length FrequencyChart Title
0123
456
Fork length in cm.
Perc
ent F
requ
ency N = 409
Assigning Ages
Carcass Length at Age data X
Lower Granite Dam lengths of entire run= Length at Age for entire Snake River wild/natural
spring/summer adult chinook salmonX
The total number of wild chinook passing Lower Granite Dam (supplied by TAC)
= Total Number of Chinook in each Smolt Migration Yr.
Chinook Smolt-to-adult Return Rates
Smolt Migratory Year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Smolts 419,826 161,157 599,159 1,560,298 1,344,382 500,700 1,173,566
Adult Returns
1-ocean -- 189 235 1496 1227 463 3203
2-ocean 997 2155 6925 28,168 20,219 11,737 --
3-ocean 456 408 833 17,228 22,408 -- --
4-ocean 0 22 390 571 -- -- --
Total 1453 2774 8383 30,235 43,854 12,200 3203
SAR (%) 0.35 1.72 1.40 3.04 3.26 2.44 0.27
Summary to Date
• Maintain large trend data sets
• Large-scale empirical productivity models
• Habitat data not well-integrated
• PIT tagging for steelhead passage studies
• Highly accurate population age data
• Tissue archive from carcasses
• Sampling not representative
Where do we go now?
Changing Needs
• Augment trend sites
• Population-specific data– Genetic & demographic information
• System-wide compatibility
Chinook Metapopulation Structure
Future Directions
• Evaluate current tasks & data
• Analyze genetic archive
• Incorporate probabilistic design
• Explore processes & scales appropriate for management
• Develop collaborative relationships
top related